Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based

Design Optimization of Bridges

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong*
School of Civil, Environmental and Architecture Engineering, Korea University, Anam-dong Seongbuk-Gu 136-701, South Korea
(Received: 8 January 2010; Received revised form: 23 November 2010; Accepted: 26 November 2010)

Abstract: This paper presents the simple approaches to undertake reliability-based

design optimization (RBDO) of bridges by integrating the first order reliability
approximation and optimal algorithms of Matlab optimization toolbox. The
approaches are applied to solve three RBDO problems that represent almost the
practical designs of bridges. At every step of the optimal algorithm, reliability index is
calculated without increasing the number of constraints to reduce the computational
cost. Moreover, these approaches allow users to formulate the real RBDO problems
with the separation or combination of component and system failure probabilities as
well as equality and inequality probabilistic constraints. Numerical examples indicate
the improvement of approaches due to lower design variables and lower cost for
comparing to existing results with the same value of target reliability index. The
proposed approaches are simple but efficient for solving RBDO problems to produce
the better results than existing approaches and the obtained results may be closer to the
exact optimization results.

Key words: reliability-based design optimization (RBDO), probability of failure, concrete bridges, reliability index.

1. INTRODUCTION Frangopol 1996; Frangopol et al. 1997; Harthy and

Reliability-based Design Optimization (RBDO) is
considered as the integration of reliability analysis and
optimization algorithms. Bridges and other structures
are expected to minimize the cost under predefined
target reliability index. RBDO can save the cost and
take into account the uncertainties whereas
deterministic optimization design usually performs
higher cost and failure probabilities for the same
structure. Indeed, RBDO has arisen from practical
engineering problems, which the structural modeling is
necessary to reach to the realistic model. Unfortunately,
most of structural design parameters which relate to
loads and resistances are random in the nature.
Therefore, RBDO can make the gap between the
structural design and real structure becoming smaller.
In the context of bridge design, RBDO is early
applied for reinforced concrete (RC) and prestressed
concrete (PC) structure by many researchers (Lin and
Frangopol 1997; Barakat et al. 2003, 2004;
Petcherdchoo et al. 2008). Lin and Frangopol (1996)
and Frangopol et al. (1997) formulated and solved the
reliability-based design optimization of RC beams
through the ADS software (Vanderplaats 1986), which
was linked to the Monte Carlo simulation software,
MCREL. Barakat et al. (2003, 2004) designed PC
beams that considered the uncertainties of material and
applied loads by linking the ADS program and the
structural reliability analysis program, RELTRAN (Lee
et al. 1993). However, it is not convenient for linking
two computer programs and selecting the reliability
analysis methods such as the first-order reliability
method (FORM), second-order reliability method
(SORM), and Monte Carlo simulation. Recently, Royset
et al. (2006) proposed the three algorithms to solve
RBDO of bridges, which related to the failure
probabilities at the component, structure, and serial

*Corresponding author. Email address: jskong@korea.ac.kr; Fax: +82-2-3290-3323; Tel: +82-2-3290-3323.

Associate Editor: Y. Xia.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 857

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

structure levels. Nevertheless, such three algorithms are

proposed for separated failure probability levels despite pf =
k ∫ ...∫ ϕ v1 ,...vm ( v ...v )dv ...dv
1 m 1 m
Ωk ( x )
the fact that the real RBDO of bridge is the combination (2)
of the failure probabilities of component and system.
Moreover, the target reliability index cannot fix to be
= ∫ ϕ v ( v ) dv
Ωk ( x )
equal to a constant value which user expects during the
optimal process. In addition, the numbers of constraint In Eqn 2, ϕv (v) is the joint PDF function of m random
have to increase during the optimal process that leads to parameters, k = 1,2,3...,K indexes the K limit-state
the expensive computation cost. functions at the structural component level, and Ωk (x) is
The first bridges in the world were made by log, planks, the failure domain with respect to the kth limit-state
or stone fallen across the stream. The historical equation, as defined below.
development of bridges has actually begun by the
innovation of Iron bridges in the 19th century. Over many
centuries, the bridge engineering greatly grow to play an {
Ω k (x ) = v ∈ R m | gk (x, v ) ≤ 0 } (3)
important role in economic development process with
many types such as beam, cantilever, arch, suspension, For the structural-system level, the failure probability
cable stayed, and truss bridges. In order to apply the is defined as follows.
advantages of RBDO method for pursuing the

∫
development process of bridges, this paper presents pf = ϕ ( v ) dv (4)
simple approaches to optimize structural cost and ensure sys
Ω( x )
the safety of structure. These approaches are well
integrated with optimal algorithms using in Matlab In Eqn 4, Ω(x) defines the failure domain for the
optimization toolbox. Moreover, such approaches can be overall system. The probabilistic model of the structure
applied for solving the RBDO problems, which relate to can be either a series or a parallel structural system. The
the failure probabilities of component, system, or the series structural system is expressed as:
combination of them. The equality probabilistic constraint

U {v ∈ R }
that associated with the constant target reliability index is
also solved. At each iteration of the optimal algorithm, Ω series ( x ) = m
| gk (x, v ) ≤ 0 (5)
k ∈K
reliability index is calculated without increasing the
number of constraints to reduce the computational cost. For the parallel structural system,
The failure-probability constraints can be flexibly

approximated by any computational reliability method,
including FORM, SORM, and Monte Carlo simulation.
Numerical examples are performed for both RC and PC
girder bridges to show the efficiency of the approaches.
2. SIMPLE APPROACHES FOR SOLVING
RBDO PROBLEMS
2.1. Background of Reliability
Based-Design Theory
Let x and v respectively denote the n-dimensional vector
of deterministic design variables and the m-dimensional
vector of random parameters that describe the
uncertainties of loads and material properties.
Accordingly, the probability of failure of structural
components, pfk, is defined by the limit state equation k,
gk (x, v) = 0, wherein gk (x, v) ≤ 0 defines the failure state:
gk (x,v) = Rk(x,v) – Sk (x,v) (1)
In Eqn 1, Rk(x,v), Sk (x,v) are the structural resistance
and load effects, respectively. The respectively
probability of failure can be expressed as follows.
I {v ∈ R }
Ω parallel ( x ) = m
| gk (x, v ) ≤ 0 (6)
k ∈K
As expressed by Eqns 5 and 6, in a series (or parallel)
system, the failure domain for the overall system is
taken as the union (or intersection) of the domains for
the individual limit state equations.
2.2. First Order Approximation for Limit
State Equation within the Optimal
Algorithms in Matlab
In most cases, the probability of failure cannot be
obtained by analytical methods through joint PDF
function, ϕ v (v). Some numerical methods are
employed, such as FORM, SORM, and Monte Carlo
simulation (Ang and Tang 2007; Haldar and
Mahadevan 2000; Bjerager 1990; Shinozuka 1983;
Schueller and Spanos 2000). In this study, the Matlab
optimization toolbox-based approaches are proposed
in terms of the first order Taylor series expansion
and Quasi-Newton optimization algorithm. This

858 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong
algorithm is presented in Matlab optimization
Toolbox, but it is only available for solving non-
linear optimization problem. Therefore, it is not only
necessary to supplement the reliability subroutine
that is suitable with Quasi-Newton algorithm but also
used the same iteration loop of optimal algorithm to
reduce the computational cost. In other words,
reliability analysis is a function which is called
during the process of optimal iteration. This technical
progress can easily assist the engineer in performing
the RBDO problem for any structures and can be
named Matlab optimization toolbox-based approach.
In this paper, the first order reliability approximation
was applied to limit state equation to obtain the
reliability index and failure probabilities. Then, Eqn 1
can be rewritten in terms of linear Taylor series
expansion about the mean values of random
parameters as given below
(
g k _ approx = g k x , µ1 , µ2 ,..., µ m ) 2.3.1. Problem definitions
∂g k ( x , v )
( )
m
+∑ vi − µ i
i =1 ∂vi
The mean and standard deviation of kth limit state
equation, µ g ,σ
g k − approx are calculated as follows
k − approx
µ gk − approx
gk ( x, µ1 , µ2 ,..., µm )
1/ 2
 m  ∂g ( x, v)  
2 RBDO problems can be stated as follows:
σ gk − approx
 ∑ σ i2  k  (9)
 i =1  ∂vi  
In Eqns 7, 8 and 9, µ1, µ2,...,µm and σ1,σ2,...,σm are
the mean and standard deviation of random parameters.
Denote βk is the reliability index that is related to the kth
limit-state function, which can be calculated as:
µ gk _ approx
βk =
σ gk _ approx
The probability of failure which associated with kth
limit-state function can be calculated as:
pfk = Φ(−βk)
Now, the failure probability was calculated at the
structural component. For the series systems, the
probabilities of failure were expressed as follows
(Mcdonald and Mahadevan 2008)
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011
 
p fseries = P  U gk _ approx ≤ 0  (12)
 k ∈K 
For the parallel system


p f parallel = P  I gk _ approx ≤ 0  (13)
 k ∈K 
For the series-parallel system,
 
p fs − p = P  U I i, j _ approx ; ∀K = K1 + K 2 (14)
g ≤ 0
i ∈K1 j ∈K 2 
2.3. Matlab Optimization Toolbox-Based
Approaches
(7) RBDO of bridges may devolve into single-objective
problems that are subjected to deterministic and
probabilistic constraints, which are either time-
invariant or time-variant and arise from environmental
attack or other failure mechanisms. The objective
function, which is the cost or the weight of the
structure, can be either deterministic or probabilistic as
well as either time-invariant or time-variant. In general,
(8) the lifetime performance-based design of bridges
considering uncertainties usually fall into one of three
RBDO problems: P1, P2, or P3. The definition of these
P1 : Minimize the deterministic objective function,
subject to deterministic constraints and time-invariant
probabilistic equality-constraints.
P2 : Minimize the probabilistic objective function,
subject to deterministic constraints and time-invariant
probabilistic inequality-constraints.
P3 : Minimize the probabilistic objective function,
subject to deterministic constraints and time-variant
probabilistic inequality-constraints.
(10)
2.3.2. Matlab optimization toolbox-based
approaches for problems: P1, P2, P3
This paper addresses three problems that relate to
RBDO of bridges, as described above. Denote c0 (x), β k,
0
0
(11) βsys are the initial cost, the target reliability index of the
structural component, and the target reliability index of
the structural system, respectively. Problem P1 can be
expressed as:
min F ( x ) = c0 ( x) (15)
859
 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

such that
µ −σg β k0 = 0
 gk _ approx k _ approx


f j ( x) ≤ 0 ∀x ∈ R n , j = 1, 2,..., q (16)   µ  
P  U I 
 σ
gi , j _ approx

 i ∈K1 j ∈K 2  gi , j _ approx 

and
 β k ( x, v) = β k0 ; ∀k ∈ K

βsys = βsys
0 By replacing the probabilistic constraints with the
Eqn 16 expresses deterministic constraints,
including constraints on the geometry, lower and
upper bounds on deterministic design variables. The
general optimization algorithms of the Matlab optimal
Toolbox allow users to input linear equality
constraints, linear inequality constraints, nonlinear
equality constraints, nonlinear inequality constraints,
lower and upper bounds of design variables. Given
that Eqn 15 and Eqn 16 are deterministic expressions,
only Eqn 17 contains a probabilistic expression.
Hence, this set of probabilistic constraints needs to be
replaced by a set of deterministic constraints at each
step of the optimization procedure. This is possible
when we consider Eqn 10 and note that it is necessary
to enter the initial design variables, x0, to begin the
optimization process. Therefore, at each step of the
deterministic optimization algorithms, the design
variables are determined. Now, the probabilistic
constraints in Eqn 17 can be replaced by deterministic
expression at every iteration of general algorithm(s)
for nonlinear optimization as follows
 µg − σ gk _ approx β k0 = 0
 k _ approx

   µg  
P  U 
σ
k _ approx
(
− β k0 ≤ 0  − Φ − βsys
0
) (20)
  
= 0; ∀K = K1 + K 2
(17) Problem P1
first-order Taylor-series expansions, P1 can be
expressed as a nonlinear, deterministic optimization
problem. The specific procedure for problem P1 is
described below.
Step 1: Provide a set of initial design variables, x0.
Step 2: At every step of the general algorithm(s) for
nonlinear optimization, calculate the mean and standard
deviation of the kth limit-state function through the first-
order approximation as Eqns 8 and 9.
Step 3: Formulate the set of equality constraints
following either Eqn 18 or Eqn 19 or Eqn 20 depending
on the type of the system.
Step 4: Solve P1 as a nonlinear, deterministic
optimization problem.
When the set of equality constraints comprises only
the constraints of structural components but not the
system constraint due to the design requirement, only the
first equality equation in Eqn 18 (or Eqn 19 or Eqn 20) is
considered. Conversely, we eliminate the first equality in
Eqn 18 (or Eqn 19 or Eqn 20) when no structural
component constraints are required. With the equality
constraints of reliability index in Eqn 17, it is difficult to
satisfy the requirements of both the component and the
series-system levels in that case the former level
(structural component) is assigned priority.
Problem P2
(18) When the failure cost is considered, the objective

  k ∈K  gk _ approx
( )
− β k0 ≤ 0  − Φ − βsys
0
=0 function is expressed in terms of the failure probability
  of the structural system. The RBDO problem now
includes a probabilistic objective function and the
probabilistic constraints as follows:
Eqn 18 expresses K+1 nonlinear, deterministic
equality constraints of the series structural system. For min F ( x ) = c0 ( x) + c( x) p fsys (21)
the parallel system, the nonlinear, deterministic equality
constraints transform to:
such that

µ −σg β k0 = 0 f j ( x ) ≤ 0∀x ∈ R n , j = 1, 2,K , q (22)

 gk _ approx k _ approx


  µ   (19)
P  I 
gk _ approx

  k ∈K  σ gk _ approx
0
(
 
0
)
− β k ≤ 0  − Φ − βsys =0
and

 
 β k ( x, v) ≥ β k0 ; ∀k ∈ K
 (23)
βsys ≥ βsys
0
For the series-parallel system,

860 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong

This problem refers to the lower bound of the β kσ gk _ approx − µ gk _ approx = 0

reliability index, β k. It differs from problem P1 in that
0
(28)
the reliability index βk = β k is forced to equal a
0

constant value in P1. Hence, βk needs to be calculated

  µg  
during the search for the optimum. Therefore, the
P  U  k _ approx − β k0 ≤ 0  − Φ − βsys
0
≤0 ( ) (29)
 k ∈K  σ gk _ approx
reliability index is considered as a design variable that
 
must satisfy two conditions. The first is that its value
should be at least as large as the lower bound at every
step and during the convergence of the general
  µg  
( )
optimization algorithm. The second is that Eqn 10
must be satisfied. These two conditions lead to linear P  I  k _ approx − β k0 ≤ 0  − Φ − βsys
0
≤0 (30)
σ
inequality constraints and nonlinear equality  k ∈K  gk _ approx  
constraints of a deterministic optimization problem.
The failure probability of the structural system, pfsys in
Eqn 21, can be calculated in terms of the mean and   µg  
standard deviation of the limit-state functions. For the P U I 
i , j _ approx
− β k0 ≤ 0 
i ∈K1 j ∈K 2  σ gi , j _ approx  
series system,
0
(
− Φ − βsys )
≤ 0; ∀K = K1 + K 2
(31)


µ  
= P  U  k _ approx − β k0 ≤ 0  (24)
g
p fsys
 k ∈K  σ gk _ approx  

In case the failure probability of the overall system is
not considered, the set of constraints in Eqn 23 will
For the parallel system, encompass only Eqns {27, 28}. When none of the
failure probabilities of structural components are
considered, only Eqn 29 [or 30 or 31] will be considered


µ   in step 3.
p fsys = P  I  k _ approx − β k0 ≤ 0  (25)
g

 k ∈K  σ gk _ approx   Step 4: Replace pfsys in Eqn 21 by either Eqn 24 (for

 components in series) or Eqn 25 (for components in
For series-parallel system,
  µg  
p fsys =  U I  i , j _ approx − β k0 ≤ 0  ; ∀K
i ∈K1 j ∈K 2  σ gi , j _ approx
(26)
 
= K1 + K 2
The specific procedure for P2 can be expressed as
follows:
Step 1: Provide a set of initial design variables, x0,
and a set of initial reliability indices, β0,k and β0,sys.
Normally, we consider that β0,k = β k and β0,sys = β sys.
0 0
Step 2: At every step of the general algorithm(s) for
nonlinear optimization, calculate the mean and standard
deviation of the kth limit-state function through the first-
order approximation as Eqns 8 and 9.
Step 3: Replace the set of probabilistic constraints in
Eqn 23, by Eqns {27, 28, (29)} or {27, 28, 30} or {27,
28, 31}, depending on whether the components are in
series or parallel or series-parallel in the system,
respectively.
parallel) or Eqn 26 (for components in series-parallel) at
every step of the general deterministic optimization
algorithm.
Step 5: Solve P2 as a nonlinear, deterministic
optimization problem.
Problem P3
This problem relates to the environmental effect on the
bridge or other mechanisms of failure such as fracture,
fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, steel relaxation, etc.,
which depend on the service lifetime. The most common
mechanism of failure is the corrosion of the reinforcement
due to chloride penetration. The structure is now subjected
to more uncertainties and the strength resistance will
decrease when the structural lifetime increases. RBDO
will take all uncertainties into account, calculate the
probability of failure, compensate for the loss of strength
resistance, and keep the structure in a safe state. The
mathematical formulation for P3 is described below.
min F ( x ) = c0 ( x) + c( x(t )) p fsys (32)
such that

β k ≥ β k0 ; ∀k ∈ K (27) f j ( x(t )) ≤ 0 ∀x ∈ R n , j = 1, 2,..., q (33)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 861

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

and (2006). The design process follows the AASHTO-

standard specification with an HS-20 truck live-load and a
β k ( x(t ), v) ≥ β k0 ; ∀k ∈ K distance from the bottom fiber to the centroid of the
 (34)
bottom reinforcement of α is 17.7 cm. The design
 βsys ≥ βsys
0
variables are described in Table 1 and Figure 2. Figure 3
illustrates the shear reinforcement at the three intervals
Some of the design variables can be a function of the from the support to the mid-span of the girder. The
time, t ∈[0, TL], where TL is the expectation of the random parameters are listed in Table 2. All the following
structural lifetime. TL can change due to the requirement examples used a first-order reliability approximation for
of the target design, including the nature of usage and limit state equations.
the properties of the structure. The procedure for P3 can Example 1: Design for minimizing the initial cost
be stated as follows: with equality reliability constraints
Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 are similar to the procedure for P2. The design of a simply supported, non-composite RC T
Step 5: Replace x(t) by x(TL) in the deterministic and bridge girder is considered for minimizing the initial cost
probability constraints. which subjected to equality reliability constraints and
Step 6: Solve P3 as a nonlinear deterministic deterministic constraints. The initial cost can be expressed
optimization problem. as below
The three algorithms described above were tested
and the results were compared with existing results
that were produced by Royset et al. (2006). The first Table 1. Definition of the design variables for
three examples concern an RC girder of a highway the RC girder
bridge that was described by Lin and Frangopol
(1996). The fourth example is a PC beam that is Notation Description Unit
subject to dead and live loads for various span lengths. As(X1) Area of tension steel reinforcement m2
These three algorithms cannot guarantee convergence b(X2) Width of flange m
to the exact optimum. Nevertheless, they are hf (X3) Thickness of flange m
guaranteed to satisfy the deterministic and probabilistic bw(X4) Width of web m
hw(X5) Height of web m
constraints, and the convergence (in the limit) to the Av(X6) Area of shear reinforcement m2
optimal solution. Moreover, the obtained results S1(X7) Spacing of shear reinforcement in interval 1 m
indicated the improvement of approaches due to lower S2(X8) Spacing of shear reinforcement in interval 2 m
design variables and lower cost for the same target S3(X9) Spacing of shear reinforcement in interval 3 m
reliability index as discussing in the next section. ca(X10) Concrete cover m

3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
b
3.1. RC Girder Design
RDBO is formulated for a simply-supported highway
bridge with a non-composite-RC T-girder bridge, as
shown in Figure 1. The transverse cross-section includes hf
four girders that are spaced S = 2.44 m from each other.
Further, the depth of the slab, hslab is 17.7 cm and the span
length, Lg is 18.3 m. The data for the properties of the
Av
geometry and the loading conditions are described in
examples of Lin and Frangpol (1996) and Royset et al.

hw

As

bw
S S S

Figure 1. Transverse cross-section of the bridge Figure 2. Geometry of the cross-section of the RC girder

862 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong

S3 S2 S1

Lg /6 Lg /6 Lg /6

Interval 3 Interval 2 Interval 1

Lg /2 Lg /2

Figure 3. Shear reinforcement at intervals of the RC girder

Table 2. Normal random parameters for the RC girder bridge

Parameters Description Mean COV

fy Yield strength of reinforcement 413.4 × 106 Pa 0.15
f c′ Compressive strength of concrete 27.56 × 106 Pa 0.15
PD Dead load excluding girder 13.57 × 103 N/m 0.2
ML Live load bending moment 929 × 103 Nm 0.243
Ps1 Live load shear in interval 1 138.31 × 103 N 0.243
Ps2 Live load shear in interval 1 183.39 × 103 N 0.243
Ps3 Live load shear in interval 1 228.51 × 103 N 0.243
W Unit weight of concrete 22.74 × 103 N/m3 0.1

c0 ( x) = 0.75Cs Lg As + Cs ns Av (h f + hw − α − 0.5bw ) β k = β k0 , k = 1, 2, 3, 4 (36)

(35)
+ Cc Lg (bh f + bw hw )
Hence, this problem is of the type P1, and can be
In Eqn 35, ns = Lg/3(1/S1 + 1/S2 + 1/S3) is the total solved by the algorithm for P1 with β k = 3. For more
0

number of stirrups, Cs and Cc are the unit costs of steel and details of the deterministic and time-invariant
concrete, respectively. In this example, Cs is 1.0 and Cc is probabilistic constraints, see also Example 1 by Royset
50, and the objective function, f(x) = c0(x), is deterministic et al. (2006). The results of this problem are listed in
and subject to a time-invariant probability constraint. Table 3 for different levels of the reliability index,

Table 3. Results for the minimum initial cost of the RC girder at different levels of component reliability

Design variables βk = 2 β k = 2.5 βk = 3 β k = 3.5 βk = 4 β k = 4.5 βk = 5

As (10−2 m2) 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.93

b (m) 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39
hf (m) 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42
bw (m) 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
hw (m) 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79
Av (10−2 m2) 0.0152 0.0165 0.0178 0.0191 0.02 0.02 0.02
S1 (m) 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
S2 (m) 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
S3 (m) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Total cost 10.28 10.81 11.33 11.83 12.33 12.82 13.3

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 863

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

0.9 0.01

0.8 0.009
Optimal design variables (m)

Optimal design variables (m2)

0.7 0.008
X2: Width of flange
0.6 X3: Thickness of flange 0.007
X4: Width of web
X5: Height of web 0.006
0.5
0.005
0.4
0.004
0.3
0.003
0.2 X1: Area of tension steel reinforcement
0.002 X2: Area of shear reinforcement
0.1
0.001
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Allowable reliability index
Allowable reliability index
Figure 4. Optimal design variables: X2 – X5 vs the allowable
Figure 5. Optimal design variables: X1 and X2 vs the allowable
reliability index
reliability index

Table 4. Results for the minimum initial cost of the RC girder at different levels of system reliability

Design variables β sys = 3 β sys = 4 β sys = 5 β sys = 3 Royset et al. (2006) βsys = 3
As (10−2 m2) 0.82 0.88 0.95 0.82 0.98
b (m) 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.42
hf (m) 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.41
bw (m) 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.19
hw (m) 0.75 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.78
Av (10−2 m2) 0.0186 0.02 0.02 0.0186 0.0186
S1 (m) 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.50
S2 (m) 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.22
S3 (m) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14
Total cost 11.72 12.61 13.545 11.72 13.66

βk, varies from 2 to 5. The graphs of the design variables failure costs. The P2 algorithm is applied for solving
are plotted vs. the allowable reliability index in Figures 4 this problem. The four limit-states are also
and 5. The results for the structural system reliability approximated by linear Taylor-series expansions.
constraints, β sys is 3, 4, or 5, are shown in Table 4. When the failure cost is assumed as c(x) = 500c0(x),
0

For comparing the obtained results with the existing
results that described in Royset et al. (2006), the case
when the system reliability index, β sys = 3, was
0
analyzed. The obtained results are listed in the fifth
column of Table 4 while the existing results are listed in
the sixth column of this Table. It can be seen that, all
design variable values and total cost are less than or
equal the existing results. Indeed, the two sets of results,
which are plotted in Figure 6, have shown the
improvement of the proposed approach. For the same
value of target reliability index, the proposed
approaches produced the better results than existing
results. In other words, the proposed approaches may be
closer to the exact optimization results.
Example 2: Design for minimizing the total cost
(initial and failure costs)
Through the inclusion of the failure cost, this
problem seeks to minimize the sum of the initial and
the objective function can be formulated as:
f ( x, v) = c0 ( x) + c( x) p fsys (37)
In Eqn 37, the initial cost, c0(x), is the same as in
the first example. The deterministic and reliability
constraints are similar to those in the first example.
The system probability of failure can be approximated
as mentioned in Eqn 24. The second and the third
column of Table 5 indicate the obtained and existing
results of the design variables, system reliability
index, and total cost, respectively. Moreover, the
results of proposed approaches are plotted together
with the results that are described by Royset et al.
(2006) as shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that,
almost design variables and total cost are also lower
than the existing results with the same target
reliability index. When the proposed approaches are

864 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong

1.2

Proposed method
1
Royset et al (2006)

Design variable values

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
a

eb

eb

3
re

ng

ng

re

ng

ng

ng
w

fw
ta

ta
fla

fla

ci

ci

ci
of

to
en

en

pa

pa

pa
of
of

th

gh
m

s
s

id
th
ce

ce
es

f.

f.

f.
ei
W
id

in

in

in
H
or

r
kn
W

fo

re

re

re
nf

ic

in

ar

ar

ar
ei

Th

re

e
lr

Sh

Sh

Sh
ar
ee

e
St

Sh

Design variables (X1-X9)

Figure 6. Example 1: comparison of the two results with respect to design variables

Table 5. Results for the minimum initial cost and failure cost with time-invariant and time-variant
reliability constraints

Example 2 Royset et al. (2006) Example 3 Royset et al. (2006)

Design variables (time-invariant) (time-invariant) (time-variant) (time-variant)
As (10−2 m2) 0.92 1.12 1.21 1.61
b (m) 0.48 0.49 0.57 0.68
hf (m) 0.34 0.41 0.29 0.41
bw (m) 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19
hw (m) 0.71 0.78 0.75 0.78
Av (10−2 m2) 0.0266 0.0227 0.0266 0.0255
S1 (m) 0.44 0.50 0.42 0.55
S2 (m) 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.24
S3 (m) 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.15
ca (m) – – 0.05 0.05
pf 0.0002 0.000188 0.00025 0.000246
Total cost 13.89 15.56 16.88 22.94

applied, the improvement of solution can be found. It (Thoft-Christensen 1998; Kong 2001; Kong et al.
can be realized that the obtained results performed the 2002; Sajar 2006). For more details of time-variant
better solution than the existing results. reliability constraints, see also (Royset et al. 2006).
Example 3: Design for minimizing the total cost Suppose that the lifetime of the girder is 60 years and
(initial and failure costs) with time-variant the system reliability index is β0sys ≥ 3. The fourth and
probabilistic constraints fifth columns of Table 5 show the results from analysis
The concrete structure may be subjected to and the existing results, respectively. From the graph
environmental attack during its service lifetime. In this shows in Figure 8, the obtained results showed the
problem, we consider the corrosion of RC girders that improvement of approaches for comparing to existing
is due to chloride penetration. Such corrosion is results as mentioned in examples 1 and 2. From the
sufficiently well known because several researchers three examples, it can be seen that the proposed
have studied this mechanism of deterioration approaches are simple but produced the better results.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 865

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

1.2

Proposed method
1
Royset et al (2006)

Design variable values

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
a

eb

eb

3
re

ng

ng

re

ng

ng

ng
w

fw
ta

ta
fla

fla

ci

ci

ci
of

to
en

en

pa

pa

pa
of
of

th

gh
m

s
s

id
th
ce

ce
es

f.

f.

f.
ei
W
id

in

in

in
H
or

r
kn
W

fo

re

re

re
nf

ic

in

ar

ar

ar
ei

Th

re

e
lr

Sh

Sh

Sh
ar
ee

e
St

Sh

Design variables (X1-X9)

Figure 7. Example 2: comparison of the two results with respect to design variables

1.8

1.6 Proposed method

1.4 Royset et al (2006)

Design variable values

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
a

eb

eb

r
ve
re

ng

ng

re

ng

ng

ng
w

fw
ta

co
ta
fla

fla

ci

ci
of

ac
to
en

en

pa

pa

e
of
of

sp

et
th

gh
m

em

.s

.s
ss

cr
id
th
e

.
ei

nf

nf

nf
W

on
rc

id

rc
ne

ei

ei

ei
W
fo

fo

C
k

rr

rr

rr
n

ic

in
ei

Th

ea

ea

ea
re
lr

Sh

Sh

Sh
r
ee

ea
St

Sh

Design variables

Figure 8. Example 3: comparison of the two results with respect to design variables

These approaches make the RBDO more efficient, 3.2. RBDO of a PC Girder
practical in the bridge design field. Moreover, these Example 4: Design for an I-girder to minimize the
approaches allow user to formulate the real RBDO initial cost
problems with the combination of different failure Let us consider a prestress concrete girder with an
level including component and system as well as I-section that is subjected to dead and live loads. The
equality and inequality probabilistic constraints. span length varies from 12.2 m to 18.3 m, as shown in

866 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong

Figure 9. The design variables are defined in Table 6 X3

and Figure 10. Table 7 indicates the random
parameters, which are expressed in accordance with
X6
normal distributions suggested by (Barakat et al.
2003). The load conditions, objective function, and
constraints conform to the specification of the 2007
AASHTO standard. The RBDO formulation for the c.g.c
PC beam can be stated as follows:
X5
Minimize X2

cc AL 491c pres x1 L / 4 + ec
2 2 X1
f ( x) = +
144 144
5892csteel x8 ( x 2 − α + 0.5 x5 ) L
+ X7
1728 (38)
c fmwk (2 x 2 + x3 + 2 x 4 + 2 x5 ) L
+ X4
12
Figure 10. Geometry of the cross-section and notation for the
design variables

Wt

f3(x) = x6 − 0.3x2 (41)

f4(x) = x7 − 0.3x2 (42)

c.g.s
c.g.c (43)
βi ≥ βi0 ; i = 1, 2, 3...9
P P

In the above, A is the cross-sectional area, ec is

the eccentricity of the tendon, and α is the distance
from the tension fiber concrete to the centroid of the
Figure 9. Loading condition and tendon profile for the simply-
tendon. cs, cpres, csteel and cfmwk are the unit costs of
supported PC I-beam
concrete, prestressed tendon, steel reinforcement and
the formwork respectively, for more detail see also
(Barakat et al. 2003). β0 = {1.25, 1.25, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5,
Table 6. Definition of the design variables for
3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.5} is the vector of predefined reliability
the PC beam
indices at the structural component levels, {βi} are the
Notation Description Unit calculated reliability indices that relate to the nine
X1 Area of prestressing tendon cm2 limit-state functions as follows.
X2 Height of section cm (1) Top-fiber stress at the initial stage.
X3 Width of top flange cm
X4 Width of bottom flange cm g1(x,v) = fti − α1σti (44)
X5 Width of web cm
X6 Thickness of top flange cm (2) Bottom-fiber stress at the initial stage.
X7 Thickness of bottom flange cm
g2(x,v) = fbi − α1σbi (45)
(3) Top-fiber stress at the final stage.
such that g3(x,v) = fts − α1σts (46)
f1(x) = x4 − 0.7x3 (39)
(4) Bottom-fiber stress at the final stage.
f2(x) = x5 − 0.3x3 (40) g4(x,v) = fbs − α1σbs (47)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 867

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges

Table 7. Normal random parameters for the PC I-beam

Parameters Description Mean COV

fy Yield strength of reinforcement 413.7 MPa 0.09
f ci′ Compressive strength of concrete at the time of
initial prestress 24.13 MPa 0.15
f c′ Compressive strength of concrete at 28 days 34.5 MPa 0.15
fpu Ultimate tensile strength of the prestressing tendon 1861.7 MPa 0.0142
α1 First model coefficient 0.945 0.03
α2 Second model coefficient 1.01 0.0043
WD Superimposed dead load 7.295 kN/m 0.1
WL Live load 156.84 kN/m3 0.25

In Eqns 44 to 47, fti and fbi are the top and bottom fiber (1) Flexural strength resistance.
stress at initial stage, fts and fbs are the top and bottom fiber
stress at final stage, σti, σbi, σts, and σbs are the associated g7(x,v) = Mnα2 − Mt (53)
permissible stresses, α1 is a coefficient of the first model.
(1) Loss of prestressed force.  a
M n = Aps f ps  d p −  (54)
g5(x,v) = ηα2 − 0.7 (48)  2

In Eqn 48, η is the residual stress factor and α2 is a in which Mt is the moment due to dead load and live
coefficient of the second model load consideration, Aps is the area of prestressed tendon,
(2) Shear resistance. fps is the average stress in pre-stressing steel at the
nominal bending resistance, dp is the distance from the
g6(x,v) = Vnα2 − Vt (49) extreme compression fiber to the centroid of tendon.
In Eqn 49, Vn is the nominal moment resistance, Vt is
the shear force due to dead and live load.  c 
f ps = f pu  1 − 0.28  (55)
 dp 
Vn = Vc + Vs
Av f y d v cot θ (50) In Eqn 55, fpu is the specified tensile strength of
Vs = tendon, c is the distance between the neutral axis and the
s
compressive face. When c is within the flange of
Vc is taken the lesser of Vci and Vcw section;

Aps f pu
Vci = 0.0525 fc' bv d v + Vd (51) c= (56)
0.85 fc β1b + 0.28 Aps f pu / d p

( )
When c is in the web;
Vcw = 0.16 fc' + 0.3 f pc bv d v (52)

Aps f pu − 0.85 fc' ( b − bw ) h f

In Eqns 50 to 52, Av is the area of section
reinforcement, fy is the tensile strength
of shear reinforcement, θ is the angle of inclination of
diagonal compressive stress, Vd is the shear force at
section due to dead load. fpc is the compressive stress in
the concrete at either the centroid of the cross-section
that resists the externally applied loads or the junction of
the web and the flange when the centroid lies within the
flange, f c′ is the compressive strength of concrete, bv and
dv are the effective web-width and effective shear depth,
respectively.
c= (57)
0.85 fc β1bw + 0.28 Aps f pu / d p
a = β1c (58)
In Eqns 56 to 58, b is the width of compression
flange, bw is the width of web, hf is the depth of
compression flange and a is the depth of the equivalent
stress block, β1 is taken as 0.85 for concrete strength
not exceeding 28 MPa and reduced at rate 0.05 for
each 7 MPa of strength in excess of 28 MPa.

868 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011

Van Son Nguyen, Heung Min Park, Min Chul Jeong and Jung Sik Kong

(2) Flexural cracking strength ratio. 4. CONCLUSIONS

g8 ( x, v) = M n / Mcrα 2 − 1.2
In Eqn 59, Mcr is the cracking moment.
(3) Immediate deflection.
g9 ( x, v) = L / 800 − δ llα 2
In Eqn 60, δll is the immediate deflection due to live
load. Nine limit-state functions, four deterministic
constraints, nine probabilistic constraints, and the
objective function are formulated through the Matlab
program. The results are shown in Table 8 for three span
lengths cases L = 12.2 m, L = 15.25 m, and L = 18.3 m.
The graph of design variables versus span length is shown
in Figure 11. It can be seen that the design variables
increased proportionally to the span length. It can be
observed as expected that the longer the span length the
higher the design values be. Throughout the results, it can
be seen that the proposed approaches well performed the
RBDO of PC girder and produced the good results.
Table 8. Results for the minimum initial cost of the
PC beam at different span lengths
Design variables L = 12.2 m
X1 8.35
X2 92.09
X3 50.65
X4 27.85
X5 15.19
X6 10.97
X7 12.7
Total cost 1519.1
140
120
Optimal design variables (cm)
The three definitions of RBDO can reflect almost
(59) bridge design problems arising in practice with the
objective function as well as constraints can be either
time-invariant or time-variant due to the
environmental attack or others deterioration agents
that occur during the lifetime of bridges. According to
(60)
these definitions, the three simple approaches have
been developed to solve the RBDO of bridges by
integrating the Matlab optimization toolbox and
reliability analysis subroutines, respectively. At every
step of the optimal algorithm, reliability index is
calculated without increasing the number of
constraints to reduce the computational cost. Basing
on the simple approaches, a special computer code is
developed to solve RBDO of bridges is simple,
flexible, practical, and appropriate. In addition, it
showed that the inconvenience in linking general-
purpose optimization software such as ADS with other
probability analysis software can be overcome.
In this study, the first-order approximation is
applied to calculate the failure probability of
structures at both the component and the system
levels. The proposed approaches can be extended
easily, so higher-order approximations, e.g., SORM
and MCS, can be used instead for analyzing the
probabilistic objective and constraints. The real
L = 15.25 m L = 18.3 m RBDO problems of bridges can be formulated with
15.67 25.75 the combination of different failure levels including
110.97 129.85 component and system. Furthermore, equality and in
61.03 71.42 equality probabilistic constraints which can be
33.56 39.28
separated or included in the optimal process.
18.31 21.42
10.90 10.32 Numerical examples indicate that the design
12.7 12.7 variables and optimal cost values are lower than the
2022.6 2823.3 existing results with the same value of target
reliability index. Accordingly, the proposed
approaches are simple but produced the better results
than existing approaches. Furthermore, when the
proposed approaches are applied, the obtained results
X1: Aea of seem to be closer to exactly optimal results and the

prestressing tendon
100
X2: Height of section
solutions are improved. Generally, the proposed
X3: Width of top approaches, which are simple and efficient, are
80 flange
X4: Width of bottom suggested for solving the lifetime performance-based
flange
60 X5: Width of web
design optimization of bridges.
X6: Thickness of top
40 flange
X7: Thickness of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
bottom flange
20
This paper was partially supported by the Korea
Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean
0 government (MOEHRD) (KRF-2006-331-D00564) and
12.2 15.25 18.3
Span length (m)
also by Smart Infra-Structure Technology Center of
Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. The
Figure 11. Example 4: design variables vs span length supports received are gratefully acknowledged.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011 869

 Simple Approaches for Efficiently Reliability-based Design Optimization of Bridges
REFERENCES
AASHTO (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials,
Washington DC, USA.
Ang, A. H. S. and Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability Concepts in
Engineering Planning and Design, 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, USA.
Barakat, S., Kallas, N. and Taha, M. Q. (2003). “Single objective
reliability-based optimization of pre-stressed concrete beams”,
Journal of Computers and Structures, Vol. 81, No. 26–27, pp.
2501–2512.
Barakat, S., Kallas, N. and Taha, M. Q. (2004). “Multi-objective
reliability-based optimization of prestressed concrete beams”,
Structural Safety, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 311–342.
Bjerager, P. (1990). “On computational methods for structural
reliability analysis”, Structural Safety, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 79–96.
Frangopol, D. M. and Maute, K. (2003). “Life-cycle reliability-based
optimization of civil and aerospace structures”, Journal of
Computer and Structures, Vol. 81, No. 7, pp. 397–410.
Frangopol, D. M., Lin, K. Y. and Estes, A. C. (1997). “Life cycle
cost design of deteriorating structure”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 10, pp. 1390–1401.
Frangopol, D. M., Lin, K. Y. and Estes, A. C. (1997). “Reliability of
reinforced concrete girders under corrosion attack”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 286–297.
Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000). Probability, Reliability and
Statistical Method in Engineering Design, Wiley, New York, USA.
Harthy, A. A. and Frangopol, D. M. (1997). “Integrating system
reliability and optimization in prestressed concrete design”,
Journal of Computer and Structures, Vol. 64, No. 14, pp. 729–735.
Kong, J. S. (2001). Lifetime Maintenance Strategies for Deteriorating
of Structures, PhD Thesis, University of Colorado, USA.
Kong, J. S., Ababneh, A. N. and Frangopol, D. M. (2002).
“Reliability analysis of chloride penetration in saturated
870
concrete”, Journal of Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol.
17, No. 3, pp. 305–315.
Lee, Y. H., Hendawi, S. and Frangopol, D. M. (1993). RELTRAN: A
Structural Reliability Analysis Program, Version 2.0, Department
of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Lin, K. Y. and Frangopol, D. M. (1996). “Reliability-based optimum
design of reinforced concrete girders”, Structural safety, Vol. 18,
No. 2–3, pp. 239–258.
McDonald, M. and Mahadevan, S. (2008). “Design optimization
with system-level reliability constraints”, Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 130, No. 2, pp. 1–10.
Petcherdchoo, A., Neves, L. C. and Frangopol, D. M. (2008).
“Optimizing lifetime condition and reliability of deteriorating
structures with emphasis on bridges”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 4, pp. 544–552.
Royset, J. O. and Der Kiureghian, A. (2006). “Optimal design with
probabilistic objective and constraints”, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 1, pp. 107–118.
Sarja, A. (2006). Predictive and Optimized Life Cycle Management,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.
Schueller, G. I. and Spanos, P. D. (2000). “Monte Carlo simulation”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Monte Carlo
Simulation, Monte Carlo, Monaco, June, pp. 18–21.
Shinozuka, M. (1983). “Basic analysis of structural safety”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 721–740.
Thoft-Christensen, P. (1998). “Lifetime reliability assessment of
concrete slab bridges”, Proceeding of Optimal Performance of
Civil Infrastructure Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp.
181–193.
Vanderplaats, G. N. (1986). ADS: a Fortran Program for
Automated Design Synthesis, User’s Manual Version 1.10,
Engineering Design Optimization, Inc., Santa Barbara,
California, USA.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 5 2011